 81399672Premium
join:2006-05-17
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:2 | reply to Michieru2
Re: she really has no choice... said by Michieru2:The situation could be made simple, refuse the god damn continuance by the jury or the judge himself. Nobody should be able to drag any case for so long and let the problem resolve itself as being forced to settle or continue the case. Hell, I want a continuance because I need to scratch my balls. judge decides regarding continuance
--
i am not a lawyer but I do play one on tv |
|
 Michieru2zzz zzz zzzPremium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | I say make the jury decide if a continuance should be offered.
At least I know if one bastard in that box says no, the continuance can be revoked as it must be agreed upon the jury. I have rather have a few people decide it than just one guy.
--
Duct tape, saving lives since 1942. |
|
Time4aNAPPremium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL | said by Michieru2:I say make the jury decide if a continuance should be offered. First of all, the plaintiff is usually pressured into settling for a bench trial, because jury trials are time consuming (remember that Single Mom needs that time as well) and expensive to the taxpayer. "The jury is never happy about you making them sit through a long trial, and they'll blame you since it's your call. You don't want to go into this with one strike against you already, do you?"
For the most part, the stalling takes place before the trial starts, so if there is a jury, they don't see that part anyway. Not that it matters, because it's not their call. The jury's only job is to find for the plaintiff or the defendant, and (sometimes) to decide the degree of culpability and the amount of the award. The judge alone decides how and when the case proceeds. |
|
